Report reveals large gap between government pledges and the reductions needed to prevent dangerous global warming.

There is still a large gap between the pledges by governments to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the reductions scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous levels of climate change, the UN has said.

Current plans from national governments, and pledges made by private sector companies and local authorities across the world, would lead to temperature rises of as much as 3C or more by the end of this century, far outstripping the goal set under the 2015 Paris agreement to hold warming to 2C or less, which scientists say is the limit of safety.

The UN’s findings come in its latest assessment of progress on climate change, published on Tuesday ahead of the COP23 conference, a follow-up to the Paris agreement, to be held in Bonn next week.

There was some good news, however: the report found that carbon dioxide emissions had held steady globally since 2014. Against that, emissions of other greenhouse gases, notably methane, had increased.

The “emissions gap” uncovered by the UN does not include the consequences of a US withdrawal from the Paris agreement. If the US president, Donald Trump, presses ahead with plans announced this summer to take the US out of the agreement, the picture would become “even bleaker”, the report found. The US is the world’s second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, after China.

The report tiptoes around Asia’s booming contribution to CO2 emissions;

… Asia’s role in emissions of black carbon and methane is ever-increasing, while North America and Europe (including Russia) combined represented nearly one third of global methane emissions in 2010, primarily via emissions from the oil and gas sector. Although sectoral structures of emissions vary greatly across pollutants, a few sectors tend to dominate. For black carbon, residential combus on (cooking and hea ng in solid fuel stoves) has been a key source of emissions, with transport and industry gaining importance in recent years (Hoesly et al., 2017). …

The report authors are far more direct about criticising President Trump;

… The INDC communicated by the United States of America in 2015 indicated an intent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by between 26 and 28 percent below 2005 levels in 2025, which translates to 4.6-4.8 GtCO2e/year (national estimate, in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) Global Warming Potential terms). In June 2017, President Donald Trump announced that the United States of America intended to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and would cease implementation of the NDC. The United States of America subsequently communicated its intent to the United Na ons Secretary-General (The Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, 2017). The earliest that United States of America withdrawal can take e ect is in 2020, four years a er the Paris Agreement entered into force. Seven studies to date estimate that 2025 emissions under the new Administration’s policies will range from 5.7-6.8 GtCO2e/year, in contrast to 5.0-6.6 GtCO2e/year under the previous Administration’s policies (Chai et al., 2017; Climate Action Tracker, 2017a; Climate Advisers, 2017; ClimateInteractive, 2017; Hafstead, 2017; Rhodium Group, 2017a, b). The impact of current and upcoming action by subnational and non-state actors may also be significant (Kuramochi et al., 2017). …

In my opinion this report hi-lights rampant gross international hypocrisy when it comes to climate action. Despite big shows of global unity and lots of green rhetoric aimed against President Trump over his Paris decision, the reality is nobody is making a serious effort to reduce CO2 emissions.

Humankind produces ~30Bn tons of CO2 per year, equivalent to ~2ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 per year, which equates to ~15Bn tons of CO2 per ~1ppm.

The UN states that unless we do something about increasing atmospheric CO2, it will be at ~468ppm by ~2100.

Multiply 15Bn tons by 468ppm = ~7Tn tons of atmospheric CO2 humans will have added to the atmosphere by ~2100.

The UN maintains those 7Tn tons are expected to cause 7°F of warming by ~2100.

So, to mitigate for 1°F of warming, humankind must eliminate 1Tn tons of CO2 production.

Dividing 1Tn tons of CO2 by our annual output of 30Bn tons, it will take ~33 years to mitigate for 1°F of temperature rise and ~231 years to eliminate all 7Tn tons.

But that means no energy use whatsoever; no coal, gas, bio mass or even windfarm produced energy (it takes CO2 emissions to produce wind turbines). No hospitals, schools, housebuilding, factories or transport. Absolutely no CO2 production beyond humans breathing.

Under what circumstances does reducing CO2 to combat climate change make sense?

Yes, some nations are cancelling coal plants – but maybe not exactly left right and centre.http://www.powermag.com/iea-says-southeast-asia-will-keep-coal-demand-high/
“10/26/2017
The International Energy Agency (IEA) says the need for cheap electricity in Southeast Asia will drive global demand for coal for power generation through 2040, even as many countries continue to retire coal-fired plants and cancel projects for new coal facilities.
[..]China this year has canceled plans for more than 100 new coal plants, although Chinese companies are either building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants worldwide, according to Urgewald, a German environmental group. Urgewald in July said more than 1,600 coal-fired power plants were either under construction or being planned in 62 countries, a number that would increase global coal-fired generation capacity by 43% over today’s levels.
[..]Colin Marshall, president and CEO of Colorado-based Cloud Peak Energy [..] noted that despite what he called “thumb on the scale” tactics by the federal government in recent years to promote energy sources other than coal, “Coal is not going away. It still accounts for a third of U.S. power generation and it will continue to be an important resource for years to come.”“.
[My bold]

Griff, if NOBODY is doing enough to limit CO2 emissions, that means that the writers of this report themselves aren’t doing enough. Come to think of it, YOU aren’t doing enough, unless your name is “Nobody”, in which case, you ARE doing enough, and I congratulate you for your effort.

15 cents tax per gallon of gas – carbon tax – here in Ontario Canada. This, despite Ontario contributing about 1% of global emissions. Of course lets call it what it is – a slush fund for the government. There is NOTHING they can do to affect Ontario emissions – check that, they are ruining the economy so when the last of the manufacturers move out because of ungodly energy prices, emissions will decline ever so imperceptibly….yaaa!

More like a race to see who can destroy their industrialised society first.

A very predictable statement from the UN – it needs more CO2 reduction to achieve that long-held aim and the creation of a global goverment.

The sole reason for the creation of the ‘Global Warming’ scare by Maurice Strond (UN) as the means to achieve an unelected and unaccountable global government of the socialist-marxist variety; part of that required the destruction of industralised society.

Quotes from Maurice Strong:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill…. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or…. one invented for the purpose.” (Maurice Strong – speech to Club of Rome – and “invented” referred specifically to ‘Global Warming’)

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”>/b> . and those two statements encapsulate what lies behind and is the reason for ‘Global Warming / Climate Change’ .
.

The real stupidity in Australia is that they force their own population to use intermittent wind power for electricity, yet they are the worlds largest exporter of LNG. How about this, export a little less LNG and build some backup natural gas generators for when the wind doesn’t blow.

That’s fantastic logic Don. Given the assurances (ask Griff) that battery technology will be/is efficient enough to take over all needs, why waste any money transporting materials … just charge the barge sized batteries and transport the energy directly.

Convince the loonies that this is the future, and start building gas powered generation facilities near the ports to accommodate the future need. Then when the renewable crap is finally accepted as failure there will be operating gas generation (like Tonopah).

Chris,
Cheer up. There is one green shoot (pun intended) of good news in the Australian Press this morning.
“Discontinuation of Penshurst Wind Farm Project”.
Do my eyes deceive me? A company is passing up all those wonderful government subsidies.
And where in Australia is Penshust?
Indeed,it had me reaching for my atlas,but its a small village in the Southern Grampians in Victoria ( population 461).
After 10 yearsp of working on this project,RES Australia has announced its discontinuation as the project is no longer considered “ an ongoing development oppurtunity”.
Hopefully the first of many.

“the reality is nobody is making a serious effort to reduce CO2 emissions”. Right, and Trump knows that. He also knows that the Paris Accord is mere grandstanding that will achieve nothing (not that anything regarding CO2 *needs* achieving), but will cost the US dear – hence his “bad deal” comment, an entirely correct analysis.

Since Obama claimed “…this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow…” – my eyeball sees the actual moment of slowing, even leveling off, was in 2005. I see a resumption of sea level rise in 2009.

I’d say a constant level of CO2 is what you’re looking for, isn’t it? Report ignores the changes that are imminent and already occurring on the electric car front and pays no attention to advanced nuclear power technologies. In other words, it thinks reductions require govt action. We already are subsidizing renewable this and renewable that and electric cars and solar roofs in this country.
What exactly do they imagine Trump should also be doing? The U.S. has led in the reduction of CO2 via gas fired replacement of coal.

“Its completely bizarre, its not just reduction in emissions which greens claim they want, the emissions have to be reduced in the right way.

For example, there is a lot of resistance to counting emissions saved by nuclear power as emissions reduction, only emissions reduction by investing in renewables is counted as green.”

Eric, I think you have the cart before the horse. The whole purpose of any emissions reductions scheme, or indeed any scheme related to AGW, is to get more funding for wind and solar – because that’s where the money is.

Follow the money. In the final analysis, greens are driven by the wind and solar energy industry. It’s an enormously lucrative industry, yet without the global warming scare stories it wouldn’t exist.

I would support construction of small 500 GW nuclear plants to allow pilot demonstration of new nuclear technology. I’m used to planning large projects and prefer to see a pilot run for 5-10 years before committing to large programs. Given that we are running out of fossil fuels we do need to develop very efficient and safe nuclear power.

If you review the reserve bookings in detail you will see oil and gas exploration results have been disappointing over the last ten years. Reserves are added from known accumulations, but that has a limit. I’m an oil and gas consultant, and I would not recommend a young person get in the business. Coal resources are a bit more comfortable, but after talking to engineers who work in that business they also feel coal has a limit, and they don’t think they can meet demand after 2050 to 2060 even with higher prices.

I keep reading comments like yours, but nobody who thinks fossil fuels are forever can sit down and give us a well grounded overview of where they think oil and gas will be coming from after 2040 to satisfy even today’s demand levels.

Small Hydro, which are usually run of river projects on high head mountainous creeks under 10 Mw are considered renewable in California, while any hydro project in CA over 10 Mw is not considered renewable. Even for import from neighbouring jurisdictions in the Pacific north west as far north as BC were there are numerous high output small hydro projects over 10 Mw that are still harmless run of river projects.

Why is there a threshold size limit of 10 Mw? And why does all larger hydro not be considered as renewable? It is of course renewable, by definition, but I think the CA decision to demonize larger hydro projects has more to do with tearing out dams and ensuring new dams aren’t built and existing ones demonized. At least hydro, and even small hydro, is a base load product, and 100% power density compared to wind or solar.

In real, California and small Hydro, in any way that it could be contemplated or considered , are not compatible,,,, if not for Cal to be considered at that point as it has ended up to a position and situation of a third world country, literally in the ropes… small hydro should not even be mentioned as a thing of some meaning in case of a State like California.

The only main pro about small hydro, as far as I can tell is, that when the energy starvation is in progress and very hard to deal with, this kind of solution can help, yes, for a short while, till things can be back to a sane operation.

Is a desperate solution, a quick jab, concerning countries nations or states that have or had resolved to a bad starvation point because of bad and stupid management over time of their power production versus their increase of power consumption.
A proper energy starvation solution, in a short term.

It is in a way to be considered as a temporary solution for third world countries at their worst with energy management,

When considering California in this aspect, is like contemplating the prosperity of life and growth of a “Tyrannosaurus Rex” making it in strawberry meals and leafs……

In case of a state like Cal this things should not even be mentioned, let alone propagated as some kind of success or solutions, as actually this things only stand at the principle as red flags for failure, and flags for acceptance of energy starvation and failure at that point…

The small hydro is like a cocaine shot for a heroine addict, in contemplation of the Cal situation.

From my point of understanding, small hydro increases the loss factor and instability factor in any power grid, but still when contemplating the loss and instability factor introduced by wind power and solar, that is like nothing to compare…, but still pushes the situation to far much worse when considered as a proper and effective solution….especially when considered hand in hand with wind and solar power, a devastating cocktail..

The state of Cal when somehow considered as a state that has to rely seriously in small hydro power , is for lack of a better word, a state declaring that it is actually in a condition of energy starvation, and at an economical collapse situation at that …..

I can try and do a further explaining of my point when it comes to a State like Cal versus the solution of small hydro power, if demanded and required, but have to say that will be only an opinion and a point of view of mine…

The main clause of small hydro, is still the storage factor, water “Energy” storage versus the electrical production.

The electrical power production is too “small” and too unstable versus the entry point or the grid plugin, meaning that it is a further increase in loss and instability in to the grid, only affordable or contemplated as such, in a situation of real energy starvation, and only effective in short term for a short while term………

In a very short explanation from this point of view, California and Small Hydro at the same sentence mean only one of two things, either cal is a State in a proper energy starvation at this point, or it is opting for a very devious scheme of considerable energy wastage coupled with a significant instability condition, fully aware introduced in the power grid of Cal,,,,very worrying and a disaster, from my point of view……that may help only those that are set for a stubborn go in the manner of absolute power and control over the slave masses…

What they refuse to acknowledge is that both sensible skeptics and monster raving greens said the Paris agreement would not and could not meet its stated goals. A complete waste of time and money. A bit like most BBC science reporting.

So good news for every plant and plankton – just bad news for the plankton forming the green lobby which has led to the world wasting trillions on a non-existent problem. The more that CO2 levels continue to climb slowly without the climatastrophe the UN and Green Oyster Cult have predicted the more their nonsense will be exposed.

The UN needs to appoint Robert Mugabe he is their goto man to get things fixed, and they owe him after the WHO fiasco.

He has successfully transitioned Zimbabwe to a low emission economy to show he knows how to get this done. His plan is so successful we are expecting economic growth of -0.8% in each of the next 3 years to further aid the decarbonizing of the Zim economy.

I actually think he will do better as Zimbabwe’s bankrupt government got a US$600 million “stabilisation” package from Egypt. I fully expect they will blow the lot and there is no limit to the amount they could get the economy to contract.

The Greens and Socialist groups would see this as a fantastic effort to decarbonize an economy and we should all chip in provide more funds for them to do even more.

Worth remembering that some of the big and getting bigger emitters , such has India, have no commitment to cut any time soon, if ever.
So even more of the cuts will have to come from the usual suspects.
Oddly the extreme nature of these , with them leading to political suicide, means they are already dead in the water.

Erik Solheim, the UN’s environment chief Climate Liar and super-duper uber-nanny bleats:
“This is unacceptable”.
World governments had best be prepared to be put in the naughty corner if they don’t bring their A game to the next finger-pointing, hand-wringing climate jamboree/whingefest.

If the UN really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions they could set a great example by closing the UN building and doing all of their meetings via Teleconferencing. Since the only energy they would need to do this would be electricity, they could drive the whole system with Solar Panels and Windmills. If they wanted to meet when the sun wasn’t shining and the wind wasn’t blowing, they could get Elon Musk to donate a huge Powerwall to back-up the Solar Panels and Windmills.

Think about all those UN people every day driving, flying, heating, cooling, cooking, using electricity, buying products, and thinking all the while that us little people should be sacrificing to reduce C02….and how frustrated that we are doing almost nothing.

As sure as the sun rises and sets, when the charade is over, they will be falling over themselves with joyous cries of how “successful” it was, and how “great progress” was made, but that “much nore” work remains to be done. The din of mutual backslapping will be deafening.
And nauseating.

In other news, the UN closed their doors permanently today and all staff and delegates left the City immediately. One hour later, the New York weather office reported a drastic drop of CO2 levels in the air over the city.

The fundamental question you have to ask is whether anyone really believes the CAGW story. We can see clearly that China and India do not, because they don’t make any commitments to reduce. If they really believed they would be terrified of what is going to happen to their own populations, and would be acting. But they are not.

Then we have to ask whether the activists in the US and UK really believe it. There is no evidence they do. They perpetually advocate local measures which will have no significant effect on local emissions, and they always refuse indignantly to propose that China or India should reduce, or even reduce coal use.

When you think that these guys say they are persuaded of disaster if we the world does not reduce fast and dramatically, and that China, as a for instance, burns and uses more coal than the rest of the world put together, while emitting one third of all global emissions….

Does anyone see any real evidence anyone believes the story? I do not.

What I do see them believing is that they want to funnel large sums of money into alternative energy, which means subsidies for wind and solar. These mostly benefit either large landowners with space to put the things, including roof space or field space for solar, or the large companies which erect the large wind farms.

All the behavior that is on show suggests this is not about global warming or saving the planet at all. Its a classic instance of Olson’s paradox. Basically, an activist does not care how much it costs the country, as long as it makes him better off. So even if the activists raise electricity prices for everyone and do not lower emissions at all, its genuinely in their interests to agitate for more wind and solar, if they make even a little money out of installing the things. The fact that the net gains to the country are seriously negative is neither here nor there. By all means make the country 100 worse off, as long as I can be better off by 2.

Griff,
There’s a big difference between words and actions. China certainly wants to give lip service to green as they’re the largest suppliers of solar cells, rare earth minerals, etc. They’re the prime benefactor of CO2 guilt and don’t want that gravy train to disappear. Nor do they want to increase their own energy costs because it’s not dumping or cheap labor, but cheap electricity from coal which is why they are so competitive in a world where the most significant value added to raw materials is migrating from labor to energy. Moreover; coal is getting cheaper as the gullible fools predisposed to guilt (i.e. those with a left leaning bias) shut down coal plants.

Promising to make a sacrifice in the far future while continuing to do what they want now is not exactly a commitment. Do you truly expect them to actually follow through on their promise if it doesn’t suit their interests at that time? You obviously haven’t been paying attention to how China operates.

All global temp observations and physics show CO2 forcing from 1850 to 2100 will most likely be 0.6C~1.2C at current CO2 emission rates, less the likely global cooling we’ll endure from the 50~75 year Grand Solar Minimum event starting from around 2032.

Here’s a novel idea—how about not wasting $76 trillion on CO2 sequestration, and enjoy around 0.3C of additional CO2 warming between now and 2100…

I hate bumper stickers. Whenever I see a car plastered with bumper stickers you can just about bet it is driven by some loony. But I sometimes wonder what people would think if they saw while sitting at a stop light and the car in front had a sticker decorated in green that said: “Emit more co2, it’s good for the planet.” or something to that effect. Maybe a billboard?

Friends and relatives that believe the climate change nonsense do absolutely nothing to change their lifestyles except do a lot of hand wringing and moaning about the perceived problem. Typically just waiting for someone else to lower their lifestyle for their sake, but it is my fault for not being a believer.

I’ve used that argument many times against my green friends. They are insistent that CO2 will end the world, then he and his wife will drive separately to the ski resort, 100 miles away, because one wants to leave an hour earlier than the other.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: if we¹ want to do something significant to quell the quantity of CO₂ emitted by vehicles, industry, commerce and domiciles, then there are but three ways to accomplish this. ALL of them are thru economic pressure to cut demand:

(2) Good Behavior Tax Credits – a LOT of money will be raised by (1). Pay some of it out to the people and industries that radically change their CO₂ exhaust budget. BE SMART tho’: don’t buy into “low emissions” when the “thing” also has a LOT of emissions.²

(3) Superfund Industry to research and implement substantially significant replacement technologies to accomplish “1 unit of output for ⅓ unit of CO₂ emissions”. Remember, there’s a lot of manna in (1).

And, failing these, fail to renew oil well leases, coal mine certifications, petroleum import licenses. If self-imposed taxation doesn’t get the job done (which it obviously will), cutting off the supply will further increase the VALUE of the remaining coal-lignite-oil-and-petrol resources.

The only realistic way to do what the greens claim is essential is roughly this:

— close the auto industry
— close the suburbs
— close out of city industrial estates
— close all the malls and out of town supermarkets
— stop chemical and oil based agriculture
— close the airlines
— move everyone into dense housing in cities – think Manhattan – where they live in new build highly insulated buildings with district heating, bike, walk or take mass transit to work, and the kids walk to school.

And this is not the US and Europe that has to do it. Its most importantly Asia.

Seriously? The greens don’t expect “us” to do anything–it’s just a way for them to signal their membership in the “club” of Elite, Educated, Social Activists. “The Planet (TM)” is right up there with “diversity,” “empathy,” and “intersectionality” is a Thing To Be Seen Doing in upscale, trendy urban enclaves. Outside the wannabe “Thought Leader” class, it ain’t even a “thing.” Because the non-indoctrinated saw through the silliness long ago. However, I know MANY millennials who truly agonize about whether their lunch is organic, fair-trade and “clean” enough to qualify them as “carbon-neutral.” Guffaws ensue.

I think we should start with the U.N. How much ” plant food” does that overbloated, resource sucking bureaucracy emit in year? We should take down that monstrosity of a building and fill the vacant lot with CO2 eating trees.

What I can’t believe is it took them that long to work that out. Even the Climate pet countries like Germany are going to miss by a country mile on targets and everyone is doing creative accounting.

It finally leaked in Germany that they haven’t got a chance in hell of making there 2020 emission targets but blind Freddy could see that if you looked at the numbers. They are saying they are going to miss by 9% but it’s higher than that because there is this whole group of emissions from the lignite power stations which magically disappears because the electricity is being exported.

So Germany has spent close to $200 billion euros (close to $300M USD) to get it’s emissions back to 2008 levels and that is all the easy stuff. Now the harder stuff and serious money and on they charge into the abyss.

It will be interesting to see how far they fall off the cliff before they realize they can’t do it and no one thought to pack a parachute or tie on a bungee cord.

Griff, we’ll assume for the sake of argument (yours) that you live in an unheated yurt, cook scavenged nuts and berries on a geothermal vent, wear flax and hemp clothes you spun and sewed yourself by hand, and recycle pee. That would explain why the uric acid buildup has turned you into a troll.

The EZ economy was on life support with negative interest rates to prevent large bank failures. Now it’s growing again and still headed higher. Check back a little later on emissions. Cyclical high growth tends to lower the attention span for listening to crap Greens.

I mentioned not long ago that I was noticing Windmill companies doing a lot of advertising on American tv starting several months ago, and I guess the solar companies are going to do the same, as I saw a solar panel company advertising a couple of days ago.

They haven’t been advertising all this time and now suddenly they are all over the airways (well, all over early morning Fox News, don’t know about the rest of the channels). So what has changed?

Well, my state for one, voted earlier this year to cut off all future subsidies to Windmill Farms (not that this is that important of a factor by itself). And we have been hearing troubling stories like the two above for a while now, so it looks to me like the Renewables industry is getting a little bit nervous about future subsidies and so is trying to tell the public about all the so-called benefits they provide.

As soon as the subsidies are cut, the future looks bleak for renewables.

Germany will miss far any “climate target”. The only member of the upcoming coalition that closes their eyes to reality is the 9.7 percent Greens, who now want to wave the dog with his tail. This will not succeed, the “Jamaican Coalition” will be the beginning of the end of the Greens. See Austria.
Quite apart, without sarcasm, it lives much better in an atmosphere with twice the amount of CO2. But we have to make an effort to achieve that. Not enough in this matter is done. It is not enough to miss climate targets, you have to miss them in the right way!

Of course the UN is complaining about not enough CO2 reduction. They fear reality where the extra CO2 will do nothing as the planet inevitably enters a natural cooling phase. They need to be able to point to reduced CO2 as the cause for cooling.

So how come we do not have the uncontrolled runaway temperature rises that were forecast in the hundred months now expired? Because the climate “scientists” had more self confidence than ability is the answer.

Many institutions put together different CO2-statistics, and they all should be consumed with one or several pinches of salt (my figures are no from this report, but are similar).
They have one insight in common though: China and India are mainly (∼77%, 10 Gt of 13) responsible for the increase of „man-made“ (fossil fuel & cement) CO2 from 1990 (ca. 22 Gigatons) to 2015 (ca. 35 Gt).
The bad „capitalists“ USA, EU & Japan together did not increase their output, as did not Russia and its empire; only the well developing countries did.
The last 3 years saw no increase of „manmade“ CO2 to speak of. The atmospheric increase was the weather’s fault.